MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 4141821: Genotype and Family History as Risk Markers of Sudden Cardiac Death in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

2024· article· en· W4404360345 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ali Sakhnini, Mahdi Montazeri, Cindy Chow, Josh Silver, Sudipta Saha, Raymond H. Chan, Michael H. Gollob, Steve Fan, Ethan J. Rowin, Martin S. Maron, Harry Rakowski, Arnon Adler

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypertrophic cardiomyopathySudden cardiac deathFamily historyCardiologyInternal medicineCardiomyopathyGenotypeSudden deathHeart failureGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The role of genotype in sudden cardiac death (SCD) risk stratification in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) patients is unclear. Whether family history of SCD (FHxSCD) is independently associated with SCD after correction for genotype has never been investigated. Methods: This observational cohort study included HCM patients who had genetic testing at Toronto General Hospital or Tufts Medical Center. FHxSCD was defined as unexplained SCD before the age of 40 or due to HCM in a first-degree family member. SARC+ was defined as the identification of a (likely) pathogenic variant in a sarcomeric gene. The combined SCD outcome included SCD, resuscitated cardiac arrest (rCA), or appropriate ICD therapy. Results: The study included 3258 patients [2142 (65.7%) male, 896 (27.5%) SARC+]. Over a median follow-up of 5 years (IQR 1.9–9.6), 114 (3.5%) experienced a SCD outcome (10 SCD, 27 rCA, and 77 ICD therapies). Both FHxSCD and SARC+ were independently associated with SCD, with hazard ratios of 1.97 [1.26-3.10, P = 0.003] and 1.73 [1.15-2.59, P = 0.008], respectively (Fig. 1). Among patients with FHxSCD but no other risk markers, the cumulative proportion of SCD was 7.8% and 9.8% at 5 and 10 years in SARC+ patients, but only 2.6% and 4.6% in SARC- patients (Fig. 2). Adding genotype to the HCM SCD risk calculator resulted in a net reclassification index of 0.162 (0.046–0.285). Compared with the original model and using a 6%/5-year cutoff, the new model identified 8 more patients with events as high-risk but also an additional 4 patients without events. Conclusion: In our cohort, both FHxSCD and genotype were independently associated with SCD outcomes. In patients with FHxSCD as the sole risk marker, the risk of SCD is significant (>6%/5 years) in SARC+ patients but not in SARC- patients. Adding genotype to the HCM SCD risk calculator improves its ability to discriminate between patients at high and low risk.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies→French-language works237,207→